Misplaced Pages

FYI

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He has been Blocked Tiptoety 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee...

Hi there :) This is just a useless thank you note for responding quickly to my request on WP:RPP to semiprotect the Twilight (novel) page. I'm already thankful for the semi, IP vandalism was really heating up - no idea why.

Anyways, just stopped by to drop the note! IceUnshattered 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Guido den Broeder

I didn't want to get into the block/reblock/unblock discussion going on. I watch this page and GdB's contributions, because he is a very disruptive editor, who has been blocked numerous times. When I read this I wonder if he's still trying to game the system. He won't simply answer, "I will never again make a legal threat." Instead, he uses complicated wording (which would impress lawyers I know) to set up loopholes. I think GdB has long ago used up any good faith remaining. I would ask you review his past, his recent NLT activities, and what the community has said about this before really unblocking him. Thanks. OrangeMarlin 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I am pretty aware of his past and am taking that into consideration. Notice that I have not unblocked the account ;) Tiptoety 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. Guido hasn't been very good for this project, and I honestly think he has the victim/persecution complex with regards to these blocks. I don't think he gets it, and I was hoping that you'd take it into consideration before revoking his block. That's all. And I didn't want to get into dramatic kerfuffle on his page. OrangeMarlin 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I respect you for not wanting to and completely understand where you are coming from. Understand that if he does get unblocked it will not be from me, I simply am trying to find a common ground to encourage constructive conversation and that means finding some form of agreement that Guido will stop doing the things he is known for doing, cause in all honesty I see him getting unblocked...so might as well make the terms clear. Anyways, cheers! Tiptoety 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he'll stick with Chess. That way I'll never cross paths. Is there a Misplaced Pages god I can sacrifice an old computer to?  :) OrangeMarlin 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman

Thank you for taking another look. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi! Please see my talk page for a reply to your message there. Very best  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers, Tiptoety 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Tiptoety. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Ani#Administrative_negligence_and_affront_towards_me.3B_reporting_vandalism_and_personal_attacks. Thank you.. Frankly, I think it's laughable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I already saw it, but thanks anyways. Cheers, Tiptoety 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roxette

The reason for why i did it was that the other user is replacing the discography with a much worse one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that, but that still does not mean you can violate WP:3RR. Tiptoety 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Lenin article

Hi, I assume you protected the Lenin page at the request of user Colin4C. This is fine and all, since it's about time an administrator got involved in this revert war. However please note that the text that user Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets) objects to being removed is a word for word duplicate of that in History of the Jews in Russia article. Furthermore, the title of the sub section that Colin4C chooses to use is POV and inaccurate. Before deleting the relevant portion of the article or changing the title of the subsection I brought it up on the talk page and explained the reasons. To this user Colin4C has not responded directly, rather preferring to engage in insults and conjectures about my motives (some of the worst insults were not on the talk page but rather when he was reverting the page - as page history can show). Through out all this I have tried to be civil and courteous and even suggested how the topic - if not the word for word copy of the material - can be included. Colin4C has been completely uncooperative, rude and failing to assume good faith. So while I'm fine with the article being protected - as it always should be when a revert war is happening - I want to request input from others, particularly an administrator such as yourself to put an end to this silliness, before the protection tag expires. Thank you very much.radek (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "sock puppet" of Colin4C. You have violated WP:Good faith. --84.64.172.203 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange. At no point did I suggest that user 84.64.172.203 in particular was a sock puppet of Colin4C. In fact, it would have been impossible for me to do so since user 84.64.172.203 has no prior edits and so I haven't seen him/her before. Why the defensive attack? This kind of weird behavior has been very prevalent in this dispute.radek (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Radeksz, you are very welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Cheers, Tiptoety 19:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Radek, you said "Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets)". You know that there is no sock puppet activity on that article. I am the only significant anonymous editor for this article at present. Stop accusing people of having sock puppets without the proof. --84.69.41.233 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there! I'm the Colin you have all been whispering about behind my back. I see from the above that Radek has been telling untruths about me. This statement by Radek above is absolutely false "However please note that the text that user Colin4C (and his numerous anonymous ip sock puppets)" as I don't have sockpuppets and never have. You are welcome to check my IP address any time. I am a long-term editor from Southsea, Portsmouth, England and published author, who has been constructively editing the wikipedia and the Lenin article for years and fighting against vandals who mass delete material against concensus. I am very annoyed that a lot of my hard work on this article seems to have been deleted against concensus by Radek and then false accusations like the above spread all around the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, most of the material was copied into other articles from the Lenin article, not vice versa. This is a common practice amongst lazy editors and should not be used as an excuse to delete the original material. If you look at the edit history you will see that the Lenin and the Jews section grew incrementally over a period of years, it was not copied en bloc from another article. Lenin and the Bolsheviks policy towards the Jews was a radical departure from the previous history of Russia and the whole subject has a bearing on Lenin's harsh attitude towards the church mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lenin saw the Orthodox church as the prime mover behind the Black Hundreds who initiated pogroms against the Jews. The whole issue of anti-Semitic pogroms was a live issue during the Revolution, with the Reds warning that they were a manifestation of right-wing White terror and the Whites using them as an instrument of policy in actual pogroms and also vis-a-vis their proposed bloody mass pogrom of what they saw as a Jewish/Bolshevik government if they had ever captured Moscow (as per the reaction after the Paris Commune in 1871). White Anti-Semitism was a popular rallying standard for right-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. Basically the Civil War was a stand off between the extreme right and the extreme left. The liberals didn't figure either in numbers or military strength. Ant-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism it is an issue of a fundamental importance to the history of the time. Just out of interest do the deletionists think that in articles dealing with the history of the Third Reich that 'Hitler's attitude to the Jews' is an unimportant matter which should be relegated to a peripheral article. The Whites practised the same genocide against the Jews as Hitler. Lenin's attitude towards the Jews was therefore as important in historical terms as Hitler's attitude. Colin4C (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR responded

Yep, its the same feller. I've posted diffs where (s)he says as much. - Arcayne () 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you made a mistake with the times, bud. :) - Arcayne () 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did! XD My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tiptoety 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Should the anon id 82.44.82.115 (talk · contribs) (representing the non-signed-in user Catiline63) be blocked as well? - Arcayne () 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He already is, take a peek at his block log. Tiptoety 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thaqt was my bad. I thought it hadn't been there. Thanks for the follow-through. - Arcayne () 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Doughnut article unprotection: premature egalitation

I've put in a request for semi-protection on the Doughnut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and just noticed from glancing at its logs that you unprotected it less than a month ago. I really have no idea why such an innocuous article would be a constant target for vandals, but since you removed the protection it has been vandalized on an almost daily basis. I just thought you should know that your attempt to unprotect this article was apparently premature. I must admit, my primary purpose for posting on your talk page was to make use of the pun in the section header. « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness article

Thanks so very much for protecting the Homelessness article. It has been very hard as an author of it (one of many) to keep up with the vandalism, both overt and subtle, over the years. Even a little respite helps a lot. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry for the unintended deletion of text here before. The browser dropped some buffers on the save not reflected on the preview. I had to temporarily switch browsers to do this. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

You recently said that the diffs "don't link to anything", I'm confused since they seem to work for me for example first diff 13:14, 9 September 2008 works fine for me, either by clicking or copy pasting the link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=237277651. It shows Phlegm Rooster editing. Could you clarify what seemed to be the problem? Hobartimus (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cinema Museum of Melgaço

I didn't understood why you delete (with no discussion) the article about Cinema Museum of Melgaço. It's a small but very interesting museum. The museum as material from Jean Loup Passek, who was many years the responsible for the Cinema in Centre Georges Pompidou.

I article was a stub but with two photos, and could be much better in the future...Joseolgon (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to provide you a copy of the deleted material via email if you like, but with the understanding that you will work on asserting its notability before reposting it. Tiptoety 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell

Hi - many thanks for semi-protecting George Orwell. I have been accumulating material for a major restructure/rewrite of the article but was deterred from making a move because the edit count was going through the roof, mostly from the persistent vandalism. I appreciate the protection; it's one of the least stable articles I have ever seen. I don't have any knock-knock jokes, but I do have a fund of lightbulb jokes: Q. How many Stalinists does it take to change a lightbulb? A. None. Thanks to the devoted efforts of our glorious leader the lightbulb is fully functional, and the vile and despicable rumour that the room is dark is entirely the work of fascist enemies of the people. (This may seem an old-fashioned joke, but one of the top 100 reviewers on amazon.co.uk is an unreconstructed Stalinist.) Lexo (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at arbcom

Thank you. Could you make it clear that I proposed and supported the 1RR restriction? I would also like you to consider refactoring the word "shopping", which in my experience is associated with bad faith.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did not propose the 1RR restriction, so no I will not say that. And I have already stated that you freely supported it. Also, I feel it was shopping, that is just my interpretation, you are of course free to present other interpretations. Tiptoety 21:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Our edit summary convo

Ha, I actually edit conflicted thanking you on your first edit where you thanked me! :) Thanks again for the help! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

:D You are welcome, thanks for all your great work! See you around, Tiptoety 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of Supervox2113

Supervox2113 should be unblocked. He did not persistently edit-war or use his socks to carry onan edit-war. His use of multiple accounts was unwarranted, but, particularly in light of AGF, seems to be innocent. However much I may disagree with the substance of this editors content, (and the offensive "humor" on his userpages should go too.) Nevertheless, he seems to have some legitimate content contributions, and I think he has not yet proven that he should be hardblocked from wikipedia indefinitely. He should be limited to one account as Lar suggested. As far as I know, he has complied with the one-editor, one-account rule since Lar blocked his socks. . Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I already posted on Super's talk page, please bear with my while I take another look. Please remember that admins are not invulnerable to making mistakes. Tiptoety 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a second look. That's what a good great admin would do. That Supervox guy is a pain the butt, but you judge a system by how it treats its most pathetic members. Even he deserves a chance. Still... close watch needs to be kept on him. He has a penchant for wasting time, and being subtley offensive. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement at Arb

Hi Tiptoety. I want to see if I have the sequence of events concerning my run-in with Piotrus correct, per the evidence you provided at Piotrus' arb: At the time that Piotrus was ignoring my requests to stop reverting and to instead discuss his edits on talk (see here and here, and while in addition to ignoring my requests for a talk page discussion (regarding his reverting back in fringe, crypto-anti-semitic theories) he was compiling a 3RR complaint as he baited me with reverts, he was also simultaneously (and instead of discussing his edits with me) shopping off-Wiki for admins to look into the edits I was making in the hopes that an admin would block me? Have I stated the facts of the situation accurately? In other words, instead of responding to my requests to discuss the article on the talk page, he was instead filing a 3RR complaint (without notifying me) and actively shopping on forums available (only?) to admins to get me blocked? Thanks you for your attention to this case. Boodlesthecat 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I can not speak as to the the purpose for Piotrus's actions (ie: whether he was ignoring you or not) I can say that he did in fact contact me off-wiki. As for the exact timing of these events, I am not sure. Tiptoety 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you say what the forum was where he contacted you and/or which admins he specifically approached? Boodlesthecat 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has been notified as to what the forum was. Tiptoety 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notified offline, I presume? _{(sorry for the 20 questions)} Will this evidence (if that's the correct word) be available to participants in the arb? Boodlesthecat 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, via email. And as for if it will be presented at a later time, that would be a question for a ArbCom clerk, I am not sure. Tiptoety 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK one more for now. You wrote on the Arb that Piotrus contacted you "in another forum participate in that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages" and that there was a discussion among a number of admins. Was this a basic one to one email, or is the "forum" more elaborate, i.e., a discussion forum (for admins?). And if you can say, was a general request made for admins to look into my editing, and issue a block if they deemed fit, or were specific admins approached?

As I am sure you can surmise, I find the info you added to be of interest with regard to the conflicts I have been having with Piotrus, particularly when weighed alongside other actions he has taken with respect to me (those that I know about anyway). So I just want to get as much clarity as possible. Thanks again. Boodlesthecat 04:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I also participate in the forum Tip references. Under that place's internal code of conduct and Misplaced Pages's rules on private correspondence, I'm not sure there is much more Tip can explain at this point. But do be assured that Arbcom does have a complete and accurate record of what occurred and will treat it with the utmost gravity in rendering a decision. MBisanz 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz and Tiptoetry for your responsiveness; it's most appreciated. Boodlesthecat 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I need your attention

Hi Tiptoety, I feel that I need to draw your attention : I had had to approach you on your talk page on 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) and on 16:12, 26 August 2008 and had received your reply on 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) on my talk page.

Please have a look there since the rest herebelow cannot be understood without that recollection.

As you will notice on my talk page I had also kept in touch with the administrator who had protected the article and upon his/her advice have requested formal mediation. This didn't go through because the related parties didn't consent.

The article is recently unprotected and I have restored the article to its version before the wholesale reverts undertaken in turn by 4 users. Promptly thereafter the article suffered again (as of now) 3 reverts back to a year ago; 1 by an anon and 2 by the users engaged in the previous episode. That is, what I experienced a month ago is starting to take place again; I am again being forced to engage in reverts due to users who take turns in making wholesale reverts.

The Administrator who has protected and unprotected the entry is informed and he/she is trying to talk to those users.

From our first encounter I got the feeling that you are, in your capacity as an administrator, specifically interested in user conduct/revert war. Therefore I thought that you need to be informed about the development, so that this time I don't get the burden. Thanks. Omer182 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message

Sure. I've got the perspective clearer now. Has my action raised its head so much that you got into the picture? :O :) Mspraveen (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with semi-protection for Memphis, TN

Hello Tiptoety, I hope you are doing alright. On August 15 you lifted the semi-protection from the Memphis, Tennessee article after some months of protection. The article had been vandalized by the same person, adding the same un-notable information about the official songs of Memphis over and over again. Well, a few days after the semi-protection was removed the same exact thing started again. The article was vandalized in this manner nine times since September 1 already, a very persistent person it seems. The vandalism comes from different IPs and there were warnings left on the IP talk page. Furthermore, the topic had been discussed in great length on the Memphis talk page, where the clear outcome was that the material lacks notability and that it should not be added to the article. What can I say, I have tried to have the semi-protection re-instated indefinitely at WP:RPP but the request was declined. It is already getting annoying that someone has to remove that information almost every day now. What can we do or how long do we have to wait to re-apply for semi-protection? I hope that you might have a good idea from your experience as administrator. Thank you very much! doxTxob \  17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoety 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueCaper

Hi Tiptoety. Yesterday, I looked at the new user contribs and noticed the edits of the above user and User:Redhearts11. I obviously didn't see any relationship at the time, but when I added the subst:welcome template to Redhearts11 talk page, and right after that, BlueCaper said it was his/her sister. Instead of immediately looking at BlueCaper's account creation log, I responded first, but I realized the close connection. I then went to BlueCaper's Log to see if there is a sock puppet involved — this could be a mistake, but I don't think we should ignore it, especially since BlueCaper was blocked before for creating nonsense pages. User:JP4Jackpot (another new account) then went to the same places that both BlueCaper and Redhearts11 edited (like here). On JP4Jackpot's user page, it says that the three have "relations". I'm not sure at all if any of these are "positive" relations, but nontheless, it looks to me as though we should contact a checkuser. ~ Troy (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend filing at WP:SSP, seeing as I am not really sure if those accounts are being used abusively. Remember it is alright to have more than one account, as long as it is used correctly. Tiptoety 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More randomness

On 5 Sept you kindly semi-protected Randomness for 9 months. The magic seems to have worn off already, however, and I can't see why myself — something to do with the intervening page moves on 6 Sept perhaps? Would you mind taking another look? Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the protection is still there. Tiptoety 16:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't when I wrote that, but it is now as User:Jj137 reinstated it then added move=sysop commenting "add move protection, since there have been problems with that", which seems to confirm my suspicion. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

User:Miyokan and threats of outing

Hi Tiptoety. Could you please give a piece of advice as someone not previously involved in the matter?

Some time ago Miyokan (talk · contribs), with whom we had certain disagreements, decided to to reveal my true identity and advertise it in WP. This resulted in the following warning from Alex Bakharev. The deleted threads are at the talk page of User:Moreschi to whom I complained, because he knows this user well. Unfortunately, this warning apparently had no effect, and this user continued making similar threats here, and here. He is talking about "Georgians" because my real family name sounds as a typical misspelled Georgian name. Hence they want to paint me as an anti-Russian Georgian troll, which I am not.

Please also see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan. Note that Miyokan and each of his sock puppets accumulated a lot of blocks. "Berkunt" was so good, even checkuser Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miyokan could not identify that was him. So, I can only wonder who else might be him.

Now he continues to be distractive and comes uninvited to my user page with various accusations. And he is not alone. Some of his friends make uncivil comments like that. So, what do you think? Just looking at you recent comments and actions, I think you are very fair administrator. Of course if you need more information, I can provide it. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, last uncivil comment does not mention Piotrus. Pieter is another user, apparently from West Europe.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is worse and worse with every minute. I asked one of the users to remove an inflammatory userbox that tells "polonium is a good substitute of sugar", but he inflames anti-national felings and attacks other users (fortunately not me) with phrases like "Russophobes will not be allowed to remove Russian POV from this or any other article." . This is really offensive, especially if other users are Russians like me.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety. With regards to "outing" Biophys, I have done no such thing, I specifically asked Biophys permission , he didn't give it, so I didn't say anything.

Even after he replied allowing me to show my alleged proof (he said, "What proof?"), I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked "so you consent to me showing my proof?". Alex Bakharev said it is appropriate if there is a convincing reason to do so. Of course I would not mention it for no reason, nor was I even the user that even brought it up there. Other users believed Biophys to be hiding a conflict of interest - I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. User:DonaldDuck did , followed by User:Russavia . "He is talking about "Georgians" because my real family name sounds as a typical misspelled Georgian name." No, it is not this, but I won't reveal it.

With regards to some ad hominem, vilification stuff that Biophys has added, with regards to my previous account, I announced to the whole community when I stopped using User:Ilya1166 and started using User:Miyokan . When I walked away from User:Miyokan to User:Berkunt, I fully admitted I was the same user as soon as asked, I never tried to deny that I was the same user.--Miyokan (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is clearly too big for just one measly administrator such as myself to deal with, as such a thread has been started at ANI and hopefully that yields a positive outcome. Tiptoety 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation on 3RR on Giovanni Luppis

I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'm afraid that the user it's back as 83.254.6.139. Could you please block the page? Thanks--D'Agrò (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's Dodgechris

Hi, Tiptoety, me, the real life person of User:Dodgechris has just created an account, this is him (see on the signiature for name), i'm just saying i'm sorry, you were persuing the Dodgechris incident, weren't you? I'm just like to say sorry to you, and please can you forgive me and please don't block this account, all i want is to edit constructively, i love wiki, but if you chose to block me, i'll be sad, but i won't use socks, i'll stay away, maybe i'll just add 1 unblock template, but that's all, if you let me keep this account, i'll edit constructively, and never, ever vandalise, i'll also be civil, avoid spamming and stick with the rules, and i'll say sorry properly to the others i harrassed , can you please send them my apologies. Gabazauls 20:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bye, bye. Tiptoety 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a few good editors....

...who are willing to help hack through the labyrinth we call Misplaced Pages Policy. I've started up a project called Misplaced Pages:Policy condensing to help address the increasingly problematic instruction creep on the 'pedia. Ideally, this project will work to condense, merge, and in some cases delete the jillions of policies and guidelines into their basic components, so that both new and experienced users only have a few pages to read through if they have a question or concern instead of many. I'm hoping that once this project is through, we'll be able to reduce the number of policy and guideline pages by half while still keeping all the nuances and interpretations clearly available for users to understand. I'm contacting you about this because either you have previously expressed an interest in this, and/or I know I can count on you as a reliable editor who knows their way around the project. I'm not advertising this in the open just yet, as I'm hoping we can get a good foundation started with the few editors I'm contacting now so that when we do make this more public, we've already got a head start to show people what this project can do. So, if you've got the time and are willing, please stop by Misplaced Pages:Policy condensing and jump right in. If you have any questions, post to the project's talk page or leave me a note - I'll see it quickly either way. As always, thanks for your help. Hersfold 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map for Wales Page

Hi there Tiptoety, I just came across your page and noticed that you seem to be keen to help. If you have the time, would you mind looking at this request please? We are looking to improve the map on the Wales article. The style we have in mind is something like the Monaco or Andorra articles. Sadly, the creator of those maps has a notice on his talk page saying 'No more map requests'. So, I was wondering if you knew where I could go, and/or who I could ask instead. If you don't have the time, would you mind suggesting someone you think may know, please. Many thanks and (Template:Lang-cy), Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Footballfanirl

Thanks for the clerical corrections. Aaron carass (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. Tiptoety 22:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please look at this

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:JavierMC_reported_by_User:ProWesternUkrainian_.28Result:_.29

If you have time, would you please take a look at this 3RR report. thanks--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The reverts were made in an attempt by me to prevent vandalism. I use huggle to patrol page changes and in this case I saw no edit summaries, removal of sourced information, addition of information followed with a "?" as if the veracity was in dispute even by the editor. I issued warnings concerning the edit summary, as well as, the removal of sourced information. All reversals were made in a good faith effort to stop vandalism. --«JavierMC»|Talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up

It seems that I am now very popular among Russian users for the lack of "patriotism". A User:Igny you know about just came back from your block and and immediately stated this, which is a bad faith accusation at least. He was soon supported by others. I believe this edit by LokiiT (talk · contribs) is certainly over the top. Although I had absolutely no disputes with Igny, the latter user (LokiiT) was repeatedly coming to my talk page with various accustions he shows in his diffs. I am not sure if these sanctions apply, but something should be done I think. Thank you for consideration.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I never make references to blogs. I have provided a link to "La Russophobe" web site (LokiiT is talking about) only from a talk page, because this site provides English translation of an original text published in a different and reliable source.Biophys (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Something should be done alright, just look at my post and tell me there isn't a problem here. And I'm not a "Russian user" so don't accuse me of being some patriot. You've constantly gotten in the way of and often prevented me from improving articles by continually reverting me in different articles and tag teaming with your buddies. It seems anything that isn't anti-Russian doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages according to you. Enough is enough. LokiiT (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never reverted you, or even engaged in any form of edit warring with you. I am simply a uninvolved administrator attempting to resolve a long standing dispute between a large group of users. Honestly, I could care less if you are Russian, American, African, or Chinese. What I care about is the fact that you are attacking users, that others are edit warring, and that Misplaced Pages is being disrupted because of it. I have never interacted with Biophys prior to this incident, and do not care what his WP:POV is in this case, all I care about is insuring that he and everyone else abides by the rules. Tiptoety 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Biophys, sorry for that misunderstanding. I responded to your comment on my own talk page. LokiiT (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case disregard what I said above. Cheers, Tiptoety 02:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for causing this trouble. Next time I will ask another administrator. I asked you only because you were a blocking admin of Igny. At least you can see their attitude. Thanks again, Biophys (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, my comment above (in this thread) was directed at LokiiT, not you (though seeing as his comment was meant for you, mine is now really directed at no one). Please understand that I am happy to look into this issue, and have left LokiiT a short waring. Tiptoety 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the rules

Regarding the notice you put on my page, can you explain something to me. The rule says: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages

Where was I repeatedly warned? Where did I repeatedly make personal attacks? I even removed the part that you interpreted as a "personal attack" at my own will prior to the notice. LokiiT (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a warning, that's all, a warning. It is just like the one I left you earlier, except I have linked a relevant RfAr case, meaning that if you continue you will be repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and there for subject to sanctions, understand? Tiptoety 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now I have a question too. I have just been warned as well. I feel like I was reprimanded for doing nothing wrong. I have never been uncivil, have I? I understand that I participated in an edit war in an article on a controversial subject, and I was already punished for that by a block. Was that the reason for the "restriction" or "sanction"? If so, why Biophys and others were not warned as well for participating in the same edit wars? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

This. Tiptoety 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So? I still do not understand. I was uncivil or disruptive? Or that edit constituted a personal attack in your opinion? Please explain. (Igny (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Saying that he "whitewash Georgia's images" is a bit of a personal attack. Like I said to LokiiT on his talk page, calling people names does nothing but turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground. All that message is is a warning, so that you do not end up being sanctioned in the future, that's all. Tiptoety 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)